Showdown in Murvaux

The Frank Luke, Jr. saga is unique in that it represents a rare opportunity. The debated aspects of most Great War aviation stories do not have such cut and dry potential for definitive answers. Were the people of Murvaux able to witness Luke's final moments, or was that view restricted by proximity and darkness? The answer is more obtainable than most.

The key players in this controversy, (and you know who you are) need to accompany me to Murvaux and we will walk the steps together. We will examine the various dynamics and physical aspects and gosh darn it, we will find out the position of the moon on September 29th. Maybe I've missed the answer to that, or maybe it is irrelevant because of cloudcover that evening, I don't know, but my curiosity remains.

I know the debate is healthy and interesting, and I don't seek to dampen anyone's fun, but the credibility of the Murvaux affidavit needs to be verified. The small amount of Royal Frey's work presently accessible is certainly one of the most important sources of information, but all challenges should be given their day.

I certainly plan to incorporate this proposed visit to Murvaux into the documentary. While it is possible that no answer will be reached, it is possible that the parties could find common ground.

I further believe that it is the correct way to take this to the next level. It is too easy for us to sit around with our computers, telephones and faxes, debating without resolution. It is time to go back to France and spend at least three to five days in the region examining the story with both 'sides' represented. After all, we have a common goal and everyone's contribution will help educate others. I truly believe that we affect people and leave a lasting impression when we relate the exciting stories of the Great War. The date of this proposed visit is to be announced.

[stephen]

Tim, before we can address a controversy we must create one. The situation is simple: we have 14 people who claimed to witness Luke drawing his weapon to defend himself. 4 of those 14 later repeated their testimony and specified that Luke did indeed fire his weapon. So far, this is simple enough for your average large mouth bass to follow with only marginal difficulty.

Now in order to create a controversy where there was none, we need some sort of legitimate, reasonable evidence to indicate that the existing evidence is erroneous. If we can find such conflicting evidence, THEN we have a controversy. There are only a handful of people in the entire world who actually saw the event and spoke of it, and unfortunately, they all said the same thing. Luke fired.

If you can find a controversy I'm all for it. If we can produce something... ANYTHING even remotely solid to refute the existing evidence, then great. Let's look at it. Maybe from Mangels? Maybe the rest of the Frey files? Maybe a missing witness from Murvaux? Just anything. I'm begging... pleading... just give me something to go on and I'll be glad to jump on the Controversy Bandwagon. But so far, the only "controversy" is between a bunch of online yappers, myself included, who are 85 years too late, most of whom have never been within a hundred miles of Murvaux, and have no more idea of what on the afternoon of 29 Sept. 1918 than the man on the moon. That, my friend, is not a controversy.

But when you get one, be sure and call me. Sounds like fun.

That is exactly what I mean Stephen. I am glad that you are steadfast in your beliefs and I know that you are not one of the chaps who does all of his research long-distance. I think it will be interesting to see who else responds. You know that the passion from the other side is equally strong! I was standing there with you when the mayor told us about the trees along the river having been razed prior to '18 for firewood. That certainly eliminates one big obstruction without any doubt. Two points all day for you. Heck, I personally believe that the site is quite visible from Murvaux. By the same token, I wish there was more consistency among the descendants of the witnesses in their passed-down recollections. I also believe that a major language barrier existed between the residents of Murvaux and the U.S. investigators. If members of the other 'side' of this debate are as strong in their beliefs as I think they are, they will come forward and agree that a personal visit is the answer. If you are indeed right, then maybe the revisionist's view will accordingly change.

By the way, I did check the moon's position for September, 1918. It seems that the moon was full September 20th, and I believe that means it still would have been pretty bright on the 29th. The next thing to check, and it would be wonderful if anyone out there has this data, is the official weather report for the region on Sept. 29.

[stephen]

I'm speaking way too early here, and I still have more documentation yet to come from Germany, Denmark and France, so on some of this you'll have to trust me... but...

a) Frank landed, fired his pistol and died in full daylight.

B) He was in full, unobstructed view of the entire western and northern sides of Murvaux as well as anyone anywhere near La Maisonnette.

c) The distance between the witnesses and Luke was closer than sitting in the top row at Daytona International Speedway and reading the number on Dale Earnhardt's car coming out of turn four.

I am not guessing, and this is not speculation. Tim, you are probably the only person on this forum who will believe me, but the person who is making an effort to actually find and verify conflicting evidence is me. I'm not saying it doesn't exist - instead I am actively looking for it, and I'm open to anything anyone can present. But so far there ain't none, and to date, there is no such thing as a "Luke controversy."

I've never understood why the firing the pistol thing is so unbelieveable. Did aviators not know how to use them?? Why issue them?

Far more fantastic things happened that day than him drawing and firing a pistol. Anyone can speculate his motives, hell perhaps he just wanted to die quicker if it was a belly wound it would hurt and take forever to die even in a german hospital.

[stephen]

Kory, an adamant revisionist viewpoint makes people do some very strange things. Let's look at a few of the more bizarre examples from the Luke saga...

- if you were surrounded by hostile forces in enemy territory, would you pull out a gun and start shooting in order to get them to help you? What sort of an idiotic death wish is that? That's kinda like poking a grizzly bear with a short stick, yet some authors have actually tried to propose this as a viable theory.

- what makes a man research Luke's death, get a specific statement from the only people on the planet who could answer his question, then release an article that disputes the very evidence he just gathered? This is precisely what Royal Frey did after four eyewitnesses specifically stated that Luke fired his gun. Either his revisionist attitudes overtook his judgement, or he had a mountain of indisputable evidence that he never bothered to mention in his articles and has been kept carefully hidden for 40 years. Hopefully, I'm very, very close to solving that one.

- If the two Luke affidavits were incorrect yet were being quoted by every book written on the topic in a 50 year period, why didn't at least one of the 14 witnesses come forward to correct the errors? Surely at least one of them would have said something, especially considering that their names were attached to the documents for the whole world to see. Yet in their best chance to issue a correction (their interviews with Frey), they stood by the original statement that Luke fired and their account differs only in minor details.

A revisionist attitude will drive someone to believe something... ANYTHING other than what is recorded, no matter how bizarre or desperate the idea may be. The fundamental precept of revisionism is that the original report of an incident can never be correct, and only the wisom and insight of the revisionist can reveal the unbiased truth.

BTW Kory, Frank was hit in the upper torso with a single bullet and was in all likelihood slowly dying from internal bleeding. We only have one very brief account of his wounds.

Hi Stephen,

While I have neither the knowledge or personal experiences that you do concerning the death of Frank Luke, and while I admittedly also choose to believe the description of his death as described in the 1919 affidavit, it seems to me that you are discounting several possibilities:

1. It is certainly conceivable that the mortally wounded Luke might have fired off a round or two in order to "call out for help". Whether he knew or cared who might come to his aid is not the major concern to a man with serious wounds.

2. Concerning the only people on earth to have witnessed Luke's death, you seem to forget that, if we are to believe the Murvauxian's, there were plenty of German soldiers on the scene as well. Did Frey or anyone else report the observations of the German witnesses, some of whom would have had to seen Luke, regardless of which scenario of his death one chooses to believe.

[stephen]

You raise very good questions, Mark:

1) It is true that Frank could have fired his gun to signal for help; but it is also true that this would have been the most illogical act that anyone could conceive. When hopelessly outnumbered and surrounded by an armed enemy demanding your surrender, do you A) drop your gun and raise your arms, B) put your hands over your head and walk toward them slowly, or C) open fire with your sidearm? I'm not saying that it couldn't have happened; I'm saying that its an illogical conclusion to reach given the fact that its a dumb thing to do in the first place, both witness affidavits specifically state that his fire was directed at the German soldiers in defiance and self defense, and there's not a shred of evidence to support the "shooting so I don't get shot" theory.

2) German accounts would indeed be the Holy Grail of Luke research, but despite the rumors of a testimony by Mangels, no such account has ever surfaced. I have two possibilities of German information forthcoming which may indeed help us, but at the moment, we still have the same situation. Only 14 known witnesses have ever spoken on the subject, and they all said the same thing. Luke fired at the Germans.

I sure appreciate the vigor and energy of your response Stephen, and I am looking forward to completing an outstanding piece of work on this fascinating subject. I do think we need to allow some room here however, and acknowledge the possibility that the affidavit-based view could have some holes. I do not take much stock in Luke having fired his pistol to summon help from the enemy. That goes against the grain as much as anything could, when considering what we know about Luke's character. It does not make sense even if his demeanor was contrary to what we know. How after all, could anyone discern the intent of the reports? The naysayers should consult a combat veteran on that one. Additionally, if Luke did seek help from the Germans, then wouldn't his best idea have been to stay with the aircraft? I also do not feel any urge to discount the testimony of a villager solely because a German officer's statements after the war. In the context of the Luke documentary, the Murvaux affidavit and the traditional belief that the villagers witnessed Luke's demise will certainly be presented as the officially accepted version of what happened in that field September 29th, 1918. However, the 'revisionist' theory as it is often called, will also be presented as an example of what one esteemed historian saw to be the truth. If there are people whom have an angle on that, and they are willing to discuss their researched views on the record, then why wouldn't that add to the program? Every stone really should be overturned after all. I think the now decades-old debate will add to the mystique, as an element incorporated into the program. We can not after all, pretend that is not also part of the saga's more recent history.

[stephen]

I do not feel obligated to recognize a theory that has no credibility. At this point, the task before us is to seek out some sort of credibility for the theory that Luke didn't fire or fired only for help. At this point, it has none.

If I can locate and verify the Mangels testimony (if it ever existed), some German ground troops' testimony or possibly another French witness who disagrees with the original 14, then we have something to work with. I've already tried to find physical obstructions that would restrict the view of the witnesses, but none existed at the time. I've already found that La Maisonnette was in full view of the events as well, and I know that it was daylight. So again, our biggest hurdle at this point is establishing some sort of credibility for the theory that Luke didn't fire or fired only for help. I think it would be irresponsible to present that as a viable viewpoint if its nothing more than someone's opinion based on thin air.